By Choo Zheng Xi, Editor-At-Large

I felt deeply angry when I saw the videos of Pastor Rony Tan deriding Buddhists in his church. A place of worship was used to propagate misinformation and ignorance. A faith of love and acceptance was being used as a vehicle of intolerance.

Other Singaporeans were angry too, so angry that a large number were calling for Pastor Tan to be jailed under the Internal Security Act or the Sedition Act. But I held myself back.

I know how deeply religion can inspire. A Catholic friend of mine told me how he teared when he first saw the grandeur of St Peter’s Basilica on visit to the Vatican, and I’ve seen the peace my mother draws from Buddhism when I went to Guan Yin Miao at Waterloo Street with her as she prayed for my safety before I left overseas to study.

Pastor Tan has shown Singaporeans how deeply religion can hurt. But do Singaporeans really need the Sedition Act to heal?

Strong communities aren’t built on strong prisons

Many questioned why the authorities let Pastor Tan off while three teenagers posting comments on Facebook were arrested. While they were later released, there appears to be a glaring double standard being applied. Lock him up, many cried out.

But two wrongs don’t make a right.

It’s telling that when controversy like this occurs, Singaporeans immediately look to a punitive measure to solve the problem. That’s how simplistic our attitudes towards faith and ethnicity have become.

Sadly, laws like the Sedition Act encourage Singaporeans to take the path of least resistance, short circuit important social dialogue, and retard the process of seeking richer inter-faith/cultural confidence building.

I understand that to say to someone that he should heed Voltaire’s dictum to “disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it” sounds hollow if his belief system has been insulted.

And I disagree with Voltaire.

I believe that some societal interests need to be protected by the government at the expense of completely free speech. Every democratic society negotiates its comfort zone based on its historical experience. Every society has its taboos: you cannot publicly deny the Holocaust in Europe, and even the American Supreme Court draws the line at inflammatory speech that directly incites violence.

However, in contrast to the democratically negotiated boundaries these countries have evolved, the charge of sedition originated in 14th Century England as a means to protect an insecure State against a broad array of political crimes. A United Kingdom Law Commission Report called for it’s abolition as long ago as 1977, and the crime of sedition was recently expunged by an Act of Parliament.

Singapore’s version of this relic now stubbornly remains, standing in the way of a genuine grassroots attempt to define the limits of speech in Singapore, a threatening tool to be unequally applied.

Laws like the Sedition Act would be unnecessary if ordinary Singaporeans and community leaders took a stronger role in promoting moderation.

Where were the community organizations that are supposed to build inter-faith trust like the Inter-Religious Organisation? Disappointingly, there was also no intra-faith peer pressure from senior Christian leaders who could have stepped forward to denounce his views and call on him to apologise. The Internal Security Department (ISD), not the community, took centre stage.

Ironically, resorting to the coercive power of the State as a first resort is likely to encourage moderates to continue sitting on the sidelines.

Even more horrific is the misapplication of police power against teenagers. A friend of mine was investigated several years ago for Sedition. His computer was confiscated and he was interrogated by police at Cantonment station. Although charges were never brought against him, it’s an experience he found traumatic.

The search for inter-cultural understanding should not begin with imprisonments and arrests. In fact, they are counter-productive. Dialogue at dagger’s end is seldom sincere — peace procured by duress is damned to be brittle.

The heavy hand of the law should be the last resort of a confident and harmonious Singapore: moderates in our community have to step forth first.

Forgive, but never forget

Forgiveness is inherent in all beliefs and cultures, but forgiveness would be an empty gesture if we did not keep the principles in which it’s based firmly in mind.

In 1944, the famous American jurist Judge Learned Hand addressed a crowd of 1.5 million strong in Central Park on the annual “I am an American Day”. He said:

“What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.”

Some might think moderation means taking the middle ground, not taking a position. But in an age of extremes, to hold the principled position of understanding and tolerance is to be brave.

A successful Singapore regardless of race, language or religion has to be constructed on the principles of a democratic country, based on justice and equality. Never forget.

Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com